|
Petitioner, |
G.R. No. 163013
Present: |
|
- versus - NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
and APOLONIO A. BUENO, Respondents. |
Quisumbing, J., Chairperson, Carpio Morales, Tinga, VELASCO, JR., and BRION, JJ. Promulgated: April 30, 2008 |
x- - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - -x
QUISUMBING, J.:
This
is a petition for review on certiorari seeking to set aside the Resolutions[1] dated December 3,
2003 and February 20, 2004, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 80746,
which dismissed petitioner’s special civil action for certiorari assailing the June 30,
2003 Decision[2] of the National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC) in NLRC NCR CA 031851-02 (OFW-01-08-1742-00).
The facts are
undisputed.
Private
respondent Apolonio A. Bueno was hired by petitioner Eureka Personnel and
Management Services, Inc. in behalf of its principal, Saudi Archirodon, Ltd.,
as mechanic with a monthly salary of SR$1,763.
On
On
Private
respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, non-payment and
underpayment of salaries, and moral and exemplary damages against petitioner.
On
WHEREFORE, the respondents are hereby ordered, jointly
and severally, 1) to pay the complainant the equivalent of 3 months salary for
the unexpired portion of the contract in the sum of SR$5,289.00 (SR$1763 x 3 =
SR$5,289); 2) to pay the complainant the sum of SR$9,117.00 (SR$1763 –
SR$750 = SR$1,013 x 9 mos. = SR$9,117.00) as salary differential. The rest of
the claims are dismissed for lack of sufficient basis to make an award.
SO
ORDERED.[4]
Petitioner
appealed to the NLRC, which modified the Decision of the Labor Arbiter on
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby
rendered MODIFYING the Decision dated
SR$1,763 – SR$750 = SR$1,013 x 12 mos. =
SR$12,156
SO
ORDERED.[5]
Petitioner
filed a special civil action for certiorari
with the Court of Appeals which was dismissed for failure to comply with the
provisions of Section 1, Rule 65 in relation to Section 3, Rule 46 of the Rules
of Court. Petitioner moved for
reconsideration alleging that it had complied with the Rules of Court and that
the resolution did not point out the particular deficiencies of the petition.
The
appellate court denied the motion noting that petitioner still failed to
rectify the procedural deficiencies by not submitting the documents required
under Section 3, Rule 46, such as the (1) complaint for illegal dismissal; (2)
medical records; (3) contract of employment; (4) position papers; and (5) Labor
Arbiter’s decision.
Petitioner submits the following as issues for the
consideration of the Court:
I.
THE DOCUMENTS NOTED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS AS NOT
SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER AND WHOSE ABSENCE WAS GROUND FOR THE DISMISSAL OF THE
PETITION ARE NOT MATERIAL TO THE ISSUE.
II.
THE COURT OF APPEALS ONLY POINTED OUT THE DEFICIENCIES
AFTER PETITIONER FILED ITS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION.[6]
In our
view, the main issue is whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the
petition due to petitioner’s failure to attach the documents required
under Section 3, Rule 46 of the Rules of Court.
Worth
noting in this regard is Section 1, Rule 65 in relation to Section 3, Rule 46
of the Rules of Court, which provide that:
SECTION 1. Petition
for certiorari. — . . .
The petition shall be accompanied by a certified true
copy of the judgment, order or resolution subject thereof, copies of all
pleadings and documents relevant and pertinent thereto, and a sworn
certification of non-forum shopping as provided in the third paragraph of section
3, Rule 46.
SEC. 3. Contents and filing of petition; effect of
non-compliance with requirements. — . . .
x x x x
It shall be filed in seven (7)
clearly legible copies together with proof of service thereof on the respondent
with the original copy intended for the court indicated as such by the
petitioner, and shall be accompanied by a clearly legible duplicate original or
certified true copy of the judgment, order, resolution, or ruling subject
thereof, such material portions of the record as are referred to therein, and
other documents relevant or pertinent thereto. . . .
x x x x
The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of
the foregoing requirements shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal of
the petition. (Emphasis supplied.)
In this case,
annexed to the petition before the Court of Appeals were the following
documents: (1) photocopy of the
board resolution authorizing Divine Laus to file the petition; (2) certified
true copy of the NLRC Decision dated June 30, 2003 modifying the Labor Arbiter’s
decision; and (3) certified true copy of the NLRC Resolution dated September 5,
2003, denying petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
Petitioner’s
lone issue presented before the appellate court was the propriety of awarding
salary differentials to private respondent using the salary rate of a
mechanic. While it may appear that
petitioner was merely assailing the proper computation of the salary
differentials, it is actually disputing the basis of the private
respondent’s salary.
Petitioner posits that since private respondent actually worked as a
carpenter, he was not entitled to the salary rate of a mechanic as stipulated
in his employment contract. This
issue is not entirely new as private respondent had consistently complained of
underpayment of wages in his complaint and position paper. Thus, to resolve this, it was necessary
for the appellate court to review the parties’ respective arguments,
which were premised on the following documents: (1) complaint for illegal dismissal; (2)
contract of employment; (3) position papers; and (4) Labor Arbiter’s
decision.
Under
the circumstances, we hold that the documents attached to the petition were
insufficient to support petitioner’s allegations before the Court of
Appeals. Besides, even petitioner recognized
that the certified true copy of the NLRC Decision dated
Liberal construction of the Rules of Court has been
allowed by this Court in the following cases: (1) where a rigid application will
result in manifest failure or miscarriage of justice, especially if a party
successfully shows that the alleged defect in the questioned final and executory
judgment is not apparent on its face or from the recitals contained therein;
(2) where the interest of substantial justice will be served; (3) where the
resolution of the motion is addressed solely to the sound and judicious
discretion of the court; and (4) where the injustice to the adverse party is
not commensurate with the degree of his thoughtlessness in not complying with
the procedure prescribed.[7]
Here,
petitioner has not shown any cogent reason for the Court to be liberal in the application of the rules.[8] Petitioner cannot evade its responsibility of complying with the
rules by faulting the Court of Appeals of not stating in its first resolution
the particular deficiencies of the petition. We note that despite having the chance
to rectify its omission, petitioner still did not submit the necessary
documents with its motion for reconsideration.
In sum,
we sustain the dismissal of the petition by the Court of Appeals for failure to
comply with pertinent provision of Rules 65 and 46 of the Rules of Court, now
the Rules of Civil Procedure.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The appealed Resolutions dated
Costs
against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
|
|
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice |
WE CONCUR:
|
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice |
|
|
DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice |
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice |
|
ARTURO D. BRION Associate Justice |
|
A T T E S T A T I O N
I
attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court’s Division.
|
|
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice Chairperson |
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant
to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division
Chairperson’s Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above
Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
|
|
REYNATO S. PUNO Chief Justice |
[1] Rollo, pp. 18, 20-21. Penned by Associate Justice Delilah Vidallon-Magtolis, with Associate Justices Jose L. Sabio, Jr. and Hakim S. Abdulwahid concurring.
[2] Records, pp. 247-252.
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6] Rollo, p. 7.
[7] Manila Hotel Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 143574, July 11, 2002, 384 SCRA 520, 524.
[8] Jose v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 128646, March 14, 2003, 399 SCRA 83, 89.